CREATION-EVOLUTION ENCYCLOPEDIA

Evolutionists have an extremely difficult time coming up with evidences in
favor of their theory. Here are their best ones, but they sure are laughable.
This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought
to you by Creation Science Facts.

This material is excerpted from the book,
HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a
creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia
is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.You will have a better understanding of the following
statements by scientists if you will also read the web page,
History of Evolutionary Theory.

Throughout this set of books we have said there are no genuine
evidences that any aspect of evolutionary theory is true. Yet the evolutionists
themselves have, at last, produced five reasons why they believe evolution to be
true. —Yet not one of them provides any evidence of evolution. Here they are:

"No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a
parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution."—*Tom Bethell,
"Agnostic Evolutionists," Harper's, February 1985, p. 61.

"The theory of neo-Darwinism is a theory of the evolution of the population
in respect to leaving offspring and not in respect to anything else . .
Everybody has it in the back of his mind that the animals that leave the largest
number of offspring are going to be those best adapted also for eating peculiar
vegetation or something of this sort, but this is not explicit in the theory . .
There you do come to what is, in effect, a vacuous statement: Natural selection
is that some things leave more offspring than others; and it is those
that leave more offspring [that are being naturally selected], and there is
nothing more to it than that. The whole real guts of evolution—which is how do
you come to have horses and tigers and things—is outside the mathematical
theory."—*C.H. Waddington, quoted by Tom Bethell, in "Darwin's Mistake,"
Harper's Magazine, February 1976, p. 75.

"So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it
goes on in nature, although good examples are surprisingly rare. The best
evidence comes from the many cases where it can be shown that biological
structures have been optimized—that is, structures that represent optimal
engineering solutions to the problems that an animal has of feeding or escaping
predators or generally functioning in its environment . . The presence of these
optimal structures does not, of course, prove that they developed through
natural selection, but does provide strong circumstantial argument."—*David
M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin of the Field
Museum of Natural History, January 1979, pp. 25-26.

"If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor
evolution by natural selection over creation."—*Jeremy Cherfas, "The
Difficulties of Darwinism," New Scientist, Vol. 102 (May 17, 1984), p. 29.
[*Cherfas was reporting on special lectures by *S.J. Gould at Cambridge
University; notice what the expert said: "Apart from imperfections, there is no
evidence."]

"The proof of evolution lies in imperfection."—*Stephen Jay Gould, The
Panda's Thumb (1980).

"The best clincher is extinction. For every species now in existence, roughly
ninety-nine have become extinct. The question of why they have become extinct is
of enormous importance to evolutionists. It has been studied by many men, but a
convincing answer has not been found. It remains unclear why any given species
has disappeared."—*David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology,"
Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p. 29.

"[*Charles] Darwin wrote to him [Thomas Huxley] about his remarks about a
certain extinct bird, `Your old birds have offered the best support to the
theory of evolution.' "—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 119.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

To the next topic in this series:

ONLY TWO
ALTERNATIVES: Scientists tell us there are only two alternative
explanations: evolution or creation.